September 29, 2011

Not only did white Democratic voters prove willing to support a black candidate [in 2004]; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Obama with a higher percentage of white votes than either Kerry or Gore earned.

Overperformed in their repudiation... a fascinating phrase. Harris-Perry, applying some standard political science tests and failing to detect racism, says "electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture." So, she posits another form of racism: "the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts."

What is her measure of this form of racism? The fact that Democrats kept supporting Bill Clinton, even though he "failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever, signed onto "don’t ask, don’t tell,” and supported "welfare 'reform.'" But a lot of Democrats, myself included, like the moderate approach, the "triangulation." And, of course, the economy was good back then. Moreover, Obama hasn't gone up for reelection yet. You can't compare the final vote for Clinton in 1996 to the pre-election grousing about Obama.

I believe much of [the decline in support for Obama] can be attributed to [white Americans'] disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.

Salvific... a great word. Let's put it together with that fascinating phrase overperformed in their repudiation. Now, tell me what that says about racial politics in America. There is something about race there, whether you want to deploy the powerful word racism or not. The points seems to be, even in the left-wing Nation, that people loaded race into their positive feelings for Obama, and now they have a special race-based disappointment.

But how do we disentangle this insidious new form of racism from American politics? Obama himself stoked delusions of salvation. What would it look like to just stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?

IS the racism that led to 98% of blacks voting for Obama the old style of racism or is it this new, insidious kind?

I made a similar point the other day and Garage asked me how that was different from all the overwhelming support blacks gave to white Democrats. When I asked him how he explained the Obama-Hillary primaries with that in mind, he didn't answer.

I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.

A Belief seldom has facts to back it up. Compare the direction of the Country now to that during the first years of the Clinton Administration -- irrespective of the number of legislative "victories." Therein lies the source of the disappointment. It has nothing to do with race.

I am pleased that under Obama, AQ continues to lose leaders like a bright yellow aspen in a windstorm loses leaves. The rest? He seems to muddle through. Is that enough?

A lot of voters feel they were fooled by the O'bama claim to a post-partisan pragmatist, who would changehow Washington operates and seek centrist solutions, tackling the tough work of reducing the deficit, etc, etc...

They won't be fooled a second time. Further, the feel-gooders got an orgasm the first time voting for a black man. There is some level of disappointment and embarassment (but not racism) as they feel let down by incompetence.

If whites stopped "over-performing" in "their repudiation of racism" the nation would begin to look more like it actually is: overwhelmingly white. Blacks , who are over-represented in almost all media as a per-centage of the population would become non-existent in the middle-west as news anchors, etc,. in which they now often constitute 50% of on-air faces as local tv news-anchors in places like Iowa & Idaho despite being in the single digits as a per-cent of the population and everybody in tv ads would stop having black neighbors and one black friend as they do ad nauseum.

Without racism to fight, the left has no meaning, and there's a sort of void opening under their feet. That's scary. She's comforting the left. She's reassuring them that racism will always be there for them, even if they can't see it. It's an old movie where a character dies, but the closing shot shows him up in the clouds, waving happily to the viewer from heaven.

It's like the gospels assuring believers that Jesus will come back some day. "He's not really gone forever, guys! Don't panic!"

"overperformed in their repudiation." = voted for him because of his skin color and nothing else.

Since he's half-white and was raised as a middle class white guy, then yea, they overperformed on that one.

You know dammed well that if Obama copied Watergate to the letter, that these same people would still support him and call everyone else racist for piling on. There is absolutely no thinking or self-examination going on there.

I like how much postmodern/academic jargon she uses in that article. Anyone who does that in academia is immediately wrong, and knows it. They're just trying to hide it behind intellectualist and elitist jargon.

"I believe much of [the decline in support for Obama] can be attributed to [white Americans'] disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation."

Translation: I am worried it is starting to be obvious that race isn't a good indicator of anything.

"What would it look like to just stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?"

This is, of course, screaming bullshit on stilts.

All that really means is, replacing old white racism/discrimination against minorities, especially Blacks, with new, public policy white racism/discrimination against whites and Asians in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.

The logical extreme of this is our affirmative action president, who time is cruelly proving, for those too dimwitted to see it in the first place, unsuited to the office.

So let's try the old way - elect/promote/hire/admit on the basis of merit rather than exquisitely tuned policies of reverse discrimination that advance the currently unqualified to salve the memories of old injustices.

"What would it look like to just stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?"

One would imagine it would have looked like them voting about the same as they did for Gore and Kerry. With the added enthusiasm from black Democrats for him, Obama would still have won, and it would be looking like we'd be heading into a tough re-election battle against a more focused and enthusiastic opposition.

Hmm.

But wait, there's more! That's just if 'racism' (if there is any) ceased among white Democrats. What about black Democrats? Why do they get to be extra-enthusiastic for the color of his skin? What about that racism?

If that was gone too, then Obama would have done just the same as Gore and Kerry.

I believe much of [the decline in support for Obama] can be attributed to [white Americans'] disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.

I believe much of the decline can be attributed to the realization by the white americans [useful idiots]that they elected an incompetent, boob who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

They got fooled into thinking that by electing a 'black' man based on the wrapper that they would be going down to the river to wash their sins away. Instead, they elected a slick siding salesman and found out that he also stole their credit card information and the bills are piling up.

Dumbshits. They will never learn and need to project their failure onto someone else, or just make up fairy tales like this author.

Come on bagoh20, an administration and justice department putting guns into the hands of foriegn criminals in order to embarass gun proponents at home, resulting in those criminals using those guns to kill U.S. border guards and probably many more civilians.

Ann can't bring that up. She would be shunned by the other UW professors at the staff parties. Show a little sensitivity.

You must be a raaaaacist to run so roughshod over these delicate sensibilities.

In 2008 McCain was sure he'd end up with "Hillary's voters," plus he was sure no white person would vote for a Black candidate. He was wrong. By 47% to 53%.

Given that we had slavery set into our US Constutiotn, the origin of enslaving Africans didn't start in America. It was brought here. And, you could name your county.

England ran high. But so did Arabs. And, Dutch. Just about anyone who promises you "FREE SLAVE LABOR" ... which you just bargain for once ... seemed to have no trouble making these trades.

And, curiouser and curiouser ... As Mark Twain pointed out in Huckleberry Finn ... More white people thought of themselves as so superior ... their "rights" were based on the values of their religion. (Where if a slave ran away, it was considered the right thing to do ... to "return him, or her, to their "rightful owner.")

It's economics, not racism, which seems to be the only thing many people looking through the toilet paper tube see.

"Salvific" a pretentious word, not a great word. Academics believe they show themselves to be smarter by using an uncommon word, mostly they show themselves to be pretentious or out of touch with the vernacular.

Liberals--white or otherwise--to the degree they will really abandon him at election time, rather than just grumble about him now, are unhappy not because he's black,but because he's just the lates tool for the ruling elites.

I did not vote for Obama because I thought he would try to redistribute wealth, and have the gov't try to take over health care. When he was elected I still felt a certain sense that a new milestone in racial reconciliation had been achieved. I was hopeful he would be more to the center than he has proved to be. I had hoped he would be a positive force for unity.

I was right about his domestic policies. Everything else has been a disappointment.

Leading a neighborhood is not like leading a nation. I again will not vote for him. I am a racist.

DBQ has it exactly right. Putting Obama in office was supposed to be a secular baptism, washing away America's original sin of slavery Never mind that the Civil War paid that debt in full and that it was the Democrat party that started the Klan and frustrated Grant's attempt to pass a voting rights act.

Even had Little Black Jesus not been a SCOAMF, even had he been the second coming of JFK, how could his election solve racism? Too many people - including fools like Melissa Harris Perry - make too much money off the cry of "racism" and use it as too easy an excuse to ignore actual problems to want it actually become a dead letter.

Not even Herman Cain's election would finish racism off. It would, in fact, be stoked to a fever pitch because he escaped the plantation.

The entire kerfuffle can be summed up in a paraphrase of that noted philosopher Homer Jay Simpson: "Racism. Is there anything it can't do?"

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) What is "Fast and FuriousYou’re joking right? The xsfer of US-made weapons to the Sinaloa Cartel, resulting in the death of 200 Mexicans and two US Border patrol Agents? You’ve missed this?

"Salvific" is a theological term and usually has to do with atoning for wrongs that have been committed. I believe that many white people did find voting for Obama to be an act of atonement and thereby salvific. That he has proved to be a disappointment as a president and that his party has continued with his apparent blessing to continue to gin up racial divisions does not necessarily alter the fact that many folks feel that we have atoned for our sins. A black man is president of the United States for heaven's sake.

The left truly does feel the bottom falling away under their feet. Guilt, their stock and trade, will no longer work like it used to. This time around people will be more inclined to vote policy and performance.

It was mentioned that if Obama had committed Watergate, he would be defended by liberals against "racist" whites wanting to undermine him. I responded to that saying we would soon find out when Fast And Furious gets a special prosecutor. It was a glib comparison, but glib suits this administration.

And how much of the "Sort of God" "He's a Lightworker" cheeleading did this woman do in '08?

If any, she's part of the problem. Building up expectations on our little underachiever.

The reason the Demos are turning on him, aside from the fact they don't want to go down with his ship, is in the form of an old saw the Lefties always denounced as raaaacist, "There's no such thing as a poor, white Liberal".

Shouting Thomas said...

When do we abandon the Is it fair? obsession?

Shout.

My man.

Don't you know fairness is the basis of the whole Lefty dodge? That's what GodZero has been belching about from the time he met Joe the Plumber.

Life's not fair and it's the Lefties' job to make it so. And, of course, they're the only ones who can tell how much fairness everyone deserves.

Although we mostly disagree, you are someone who does generally follow politics and current events. The fact that you are not familiar with this phrase is really a reflection on the lack of coverage it is getting in the mainsteam media. If Bush had done this, it would be front page every day until he or his attorney general resigned.

-------------------------

Couple big problems for the left.

1. Calling people racists works less and less.

2. There is no more money. We've maxed out. The problem with socialism, big gov't, liberals, progressives...is that at some point you run out of other peoples' money. We've reached that point. Obama/the left have lots left they want to do, just at the time we ran out of money.

How to "stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?" I think RKae put his (her?) finger on it the day in the CBC thread:

"The way I am constantly reminded of past cultural sins (as if I was there committing them or something) it just makes me say “Why should I bother?” We change things, and bygone acts are continually dredged up and shoved at us – in both the political arena and in endless “Can you believe the world used to be this way?” movies. So really: if some “oppressed minority” wants some change, why should I bother? It won’t be actual change. They won’t let it be.

Minorities are like really annoying wives."

Paraphrasing the conclusion slightly:...You say you’re sorry and do your best to make amends; it doesn’t do a damned bit of good. Let’s just go our separate ways.

Sixty Grit, I regreted it after I posted. I have owned dogs far smarter than Carol. I apologize to the canine species. Those dogs were not particularly big on political theory, but they were smart enough to distinguish between the paper boy and a prowler and act accordingly.

Bill Clinton was also popular because of policies like welfare reform and free trade treaties. And he came across as likeable in his speeches, rather than arrogant. That's a *huge* political asset in the television age.

My question for the Nation would be: What would America have to look like for you to conclude that racism is no longer significant?

this is the shit that happens when affirmative action principles are applied to presidential politics! This commie frets over holding Obama to a higher standard, when, in fact, he was elected precisely because he was held to a LOWER standard! Voters ignored his lack of accomplishments and experience, as well as his radical associations and views, precisely because he was black. I call that Racism, but whatev. The point is that, like many blacks who are admitted to universities or given jobs under the auspices of affirmative action, Obama is overwhelmed by the job - he is not up to the task because he is not prepared or qualified to do it. For those who expected Obama to be "the One" and a great leader, they ought to be disappointed only in themselves. There was no objective reason to believe that crap. You're suckers.

Bill Clinton was also popular because of policies like welfare reform and free trade treaties. And he came across as likeable in his speeches, rather than arrogant. That's a *huge* political asset in the television age.

Willie was dragged kicking and screaming into welfare reform by Newt.

And a lot of his TV image was massaged by the media. He's probably the last Lefty who will really be able to coast on the old centralized media.

Both Geraldine Ferraro and Elizabeth Edwards called this early in the '08 election cycle, Ferraro discussing why this (half) black man with no track record was overperforming against Hillary, and EE complaining that she couldn't make John either black or a woman to compete better(insert joke here). As ye sow...

"... If Obama gets 48% of the vote, that will be more than Bill Clinton ever got..."

When you consider the complete disallusionment of the Bush years, the horrible candidate that was McCain and the economic crisis, President 57 States won with about the same margin as Bush 41 did and hopefully will mirror his re-election results.

Attempting to normalize an invasion of over one million illegal aliens who displace America men, women, and children; and place a progressive burden on our society's systems.

While there is nearly 10% unemployment, and an additional 10% long-term unemployed or underemployed, there is little justification for legal immigration, let alone for unmeasured illegal immigration.

Promoting policies which divide people into classes, not by merit, but by incidental features, which are enforced through authority. Both the public and private sector profit from this behavior, and will not soon forsake their revenue streams.

"Cash for clunkers" and other programs which artificially distort the market.

Forcing an individual mandate in the form of a so-called "health care reform", while ignoring underlying causes for the high cost of medical services and progressive occurrence of disease.

Offering redistribution schemes such as welfare, while removing incentives to develop a sustainable economy.

Executing policies which are funded through involuntary exploitation (e.g., taxes) to normalize abortion and other deviant behaviors.

Arming drug cartels and other criminal elements with publicly subsidized guns. Even Calderon has demanded an answer for this "innocent mistake."

Many of his faults are not unique and did not originate with him; but, unfortunately, he embraces all of them, while others are a bit more selective.

The real question is why would anyone approve of his leadership.

On an unrelated note, if racism is the issue of merit, and particularly prejudice directed towards individuals with dark skin, why isn't their global condemnation of Muslims murdering, raping, and enslaving black Christians and pagans in Africa? While this is not a new or recent phenomenon, it does raise the question of motivation on other matters involving prejudice.

In any case, condemnation of racism, prejudice, bigotry, etc., are ineffective when they are supported through assertion rather than evidence. It is really quite boring and detached from reality. Well, at least it is in America.

The "White House Insider" pointed out a month ago or so that the re-election campaign of the liar-in-chief hinges on smearing opponents as racists. So far, that observation proves accurate.

Here come liberal arts faculties to drive home the smear with unreachable language. Time to refudiate the smear and its linguistic carrying wave by re-forming the nation suddenly and relentlessly.

Salvific is a theological neologism of recent origin, based on the Latin salus, which means healthy in the sense of whole, unified, reunited, re-formed, restored. A just decision in a court of law is a salvation.

You're ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan...and the other countries in the Middle East into which our War Against The World is bleeding.

"The majority of Americans reject coerced 'redistributive change.' They much prefer voluntary redistribution through market economics."

According to whom? According to what definition of terms? Government practices of recent decades constitutes a redistribution of wealth from the financial bottom and middle to the top. I'm sure most Americans do reject that, but I'm sure that's not what you mean.

But now do we disentangle this insidious new form of racism from American politics?

By calling the opposition racist.

Lets try this.

Not only did white Republican voters prove willing to support a black candidate [Fla Republican Straw Poll]; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Herman Cain with a higher percentage of white votes than either Perry or Romney earned.

Did Tea Parties "overperformed" (September 24) their displeasure at being called racist September 23?

Sorry I didn't go through the comments and if someone else made a point of this already. Obama is a race hustler and he used race baiting to get where he is today. He also happens to be extremely incompetent in everything he has done. Many of us noted that he was not ready and he had not done anything (including his wife who said that same thing) to deserve becoming the president. Many of us didn't even see any hidden potential in him to rise to the challenge. Now that he is proven to be incompetent and undeserving of a 2nd term and saying so is 'insiduous racism' for these people? Fuck them.

In response to the question I posed why "Fast and furious" was pertinent to this thread, Scott M said:

"It was mentioned that if Obama had committed Watergate, he would be defended by liberals against 'racist' whites wanting to undermine him. I responded to that saying we would soon find out when Fast And Furious gets a special prosecutor. It was a glib comparison, but glib suits this administration."

I don't disagree with you, as Obama already has been defended by his supporters for policies that these same supporters rightly condemned as criminal when they were Bush's policies, but I will point out there is a difference: Fast and Furious is a debacle of stupidity and incompetence; Watergate was the willful attempt to obstruct justice by the White House, by attempting to conceal the germinal crime of the breaking and entering into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office by men hired by advisors to the President.

Fast and Furious is a debacle of stupidity and incompetence; Watergate was the willful attempt to obstruct justice by the White House, by attempting to conceal the germinal crime of the breaking and entering into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office by men hired by advisors to the President.

This is disingenuous of you, RC. Watergate has been chronicled ad nauseum for decades. F&F is just in it's opening stages. You have absolutely no idea how much willful obstruction of justice the administration is or isn't involved with. I would suggest that those familiar with Watergate would have learned from the mistakes made by the Nixon administration as well as subsequent administrations and their scandals, making them very slippery indeed.

The point is that we have something Very Wrong here and there's no Woodward or Burnstein clamoring for answers. Or, if you wish, there are, but they are media outsiders.

"I believe much of [the decline in support for Obama] can be attributed to [white Americans'] disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation."

Exactly wrong. Now that whites have been able to vote for a black over the white candidate, they have proven themselves (in their own minds) non racist. Now they are free to vote for whoever looks like the best candidate. To vote for Obama (given that his admin has been a disaster) just because he is part black would be racist.

The big question is do the lefties abandon Obama before he is renominated? I hope not.

The big question is do the lefties abandon Obama before he is renominated? I hope not.

Of everything that could possibly happen, this is really the only thing I'm worried about. I'm worried about it because I think the DNC is getting harangued constantly by congressional Democrats either in vulnerable seats themselves (17 of them) or otherwise see the writing on the wall if POTUS is at the top of the ticket for them.

I'm still not betting on a filibuster-proof Senate, but as things are going, I'm betting it changes hands.

Actually:"The Watergate scandal was a political scandal during the 1970s in the United States resulting from the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. and the Nixon administration's attempted cover up of its involvement."

Watergate was done by non government political operatives. Nixon knew nothing about it until after it happened. Nixon went down for his cover up.

Fast and Furious was perpetrated by Obama's admin. Most likely DOJ head Holder approved the operation.

Will Obama and Holder continue to stonewall the various investigations of Holder's Justice Dept? If not, why not impeach Holder (is that possible?) to force the government to come clean?

Which members of his admin will Obama pardon just before he leaves office?

Fast and Furious is a debacle of stupidity and incompetence; Watergate was the willful attempt to obstruct justice by the White House, by attempting to conceal the germinal crime of the breaking and entering into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office by men hired by advisors to the President.

This is the spin that the MSM and DNC are trying to feed us with the gunwalker scandal. But it doesn't pass the smell test.

First of all, it wasn't limited to Arizona, but rather, appears to have been implemented in several other states. Second, it was an inter-agency and inter-departmental operation. Not just some rogue ATF agents. This means that, at a minimum, direct reports to the AG and the secretaries of Homeland Security and State were complicit, and most likely, instrumental. Third, members of the President's National Security staff in the White House were made aware of the operation. Fourth, federal funds were used to buy weapons that ultimately ended up with that favored Mexican cartel. Fifth, the FBI immediately, within hours of the death of the border agent by guns from this operation, started a cover up. Sixth, the AG is stonewalling like crazy.

Let me add to my last on Fast and Furious: This means that, at a minimum, direct reports to the AG and the secretaries of Homeland Security and State were complicit, and most likely, instrumental.

What I forgot to mention was that these are high level Obama Administration political appointees with major operational responsibilities. This sort of inter-agency and inter-departmental cooperation just doesn't happen in the government with low level employees calling each other up. Especially since it appears right now that federal felonies were being committed by some of those involved.

I don't think that he has the governing experience needed for the Presidency, esp. after seeing who horribly the current President is doing as result of not having any.

But Cain is the perfect VP candidate. He is invariably extremely well prepared, articulate, has a sunny disposition, and takes heat well. In short, the perfect attack dog. Oh, and a real "black", who looks black, and grew up in the segregated south. And, if he would ever get a chance to debate Joe Biden, he would clean his clock.

The other good alternative is Rubio, but Cain's run for the Presidency is what is setting him apart. And, I don't think that his ego is so big that he wouldn't take the second slot if he lost the nomination to another Republican.

People are coming to realize that Obama has no allegiance or attachment to America--- it shows in everything he does, and is the verification of the rationale of the natural born Citizen requirment.

As A. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68, and was cited by the "law prof" right here on this blog:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention."

A "creature of our own" is a natural born Citizen. Is a man born with mutiple allegiances due to the citizenship of his parents a "Creature of our own"?

Would "the most provident and judicious attention", to prevent foreign powers influence and intigue, be to allow one born to foreigners, and instilled with their parents foreign citizenship, to be eligible for POTUS?

How about the twins recently born to a Mexican drug dealer, who's US Citizen wife came specifically across the border to birth them, and then took them back? Are those children natural born Citizens?

Obama was born into a rat's den of Anti- American Socialists and Marxists. He associated w/ them his entire life. What did these starry-eyed voters, including the "law prof" expect?

What would it look like to just stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?

There have been a few studies where reviewers examine CVs that are identical, aside from having obviously WASP/non-WASP names or obviously gendered names, and there tends to be a real, measurable bias in how CVs are rated that is consistent with common definitions of ethnic or gender discrimination.

It seems that this worked to opposite effect with President Obama. Absent race, it's hard to imagine someone with so thin of a CV and a lack of serious executive experience even entering a Presidential primary contest, much less making it through to the general election. Of course, that's far too inflammatory an idea to suggest in polite company.

Asking "What would it look like to just stop overperforming the repudiation of racism?" seems to be a timid way of making that extremely politically incorrect observation while hiding behind the obfuscatory language of an academic. The direct way to ask the question would be to ask, "What would it look like to just stop factoring a candidate's skin color into a decision about a candidate? Would we have our current President if we did that?"

To suggest that Obama's race actually helped him to become President is, in many circles, to invite the most vituperative accusations of being a racist, and that is a measure of how far away we are from being able to have a completely honest discussion about race in our society.

As far as I know--and I haven't read extensively on the subject--this was not a rogue, criminal operation, as Watergate was even before the obstruction of justice began, but an authorized government program. A stupid, wrong-headed government program that failed due to incompetence, but then, such is the case with so many government programs. Is anyone alleging this was a criminal operation, undertaken without official approval?

I really don't see the comparison of kind with Watergate at all, from what I know about it.

Amazed at the Cowed by "racist" and "birther" crowd thinking they can stop Obama's policies. How is that working out? All I see are flawed candidates, that can't even beat a weakened Obama. You all could just void all of his policies and appointments, but you're to dumb, or scared. Just stand aside, plenty of patriots are awake.

I really don't see the comparison of kind with Watergate at all, from what I know about it.

RC - you're forgetting why it was brought up to begin with. The suggestion was that had Obama been president instead of Nixon, the same people that hate Nixon for what he did there would be defending Obama in the same set of circumstances. It was then suggested that we're about to find out because F&F is going to blow up all over this administration's face.

As is it is presented by the MSM so far, Fast and Furious was just a bungled operation by a regional ATF. As the evidence begins to show a much wider scope, even the MSM is beginning to ask, how did such a stupid idea take root? One may ascribe many qualities to administration higher-ups, but stupidity isn't one of them. There is only one answer that makes any sense. The Obama administration never had a thought for tracing cartel gun crime. The administration's intent was to create a gun crime wave on the border with the guns traceable to US gun shops so that they could abrogate Americans' second amendment rights with impunity.

"There is only one answer that makes any sense. The Obama administration never had a thought for tracing cartel gun crime. The administration's intent was to create a gun crime wave on the border with the guns traceable to US gun shops so that they could abrogate Americans' second amendment rights with impunity."

I think you're entering Mick Jagger territory with such a ludicrous notion.

If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirmeent was to prevent foreign influence (FACT), then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, to a British subject father (FACT) is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) I think you're entering Mick Jagger territory with such a ludicrous notionFunny how you can see Bush as a “war criminal” but just can’t wrap your head around this…look there was NO WAY to trace the weapons when they left the arms stores and NO WAY to arrest the illegal possessors of the weapons in Mexico. There could be NO “sting.” So, as Holmes would say, When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The TRUTH is that the Obama Administration figured this was a good way to enact tougher gun laws in the US, by citing the “violence caused by US weapons crossing the border.” It’s the ONLY thing that makes sense from the facts, Cookie. The goad was a bunch of dead Mexicans, att he hands of US firearms, prompting Mexico and the UN to demand action of the US, via US law/regulation and the UN Treaty on Small Arms.

Rubio is not eligible--- born to non US Citizen resident alien Cubans.

=================Mick is nothing if not predictable and endlessly tedious. Good to laugh at, not with.

Obama not eligible.McCain not eligible because his dad was assigned to duty in the US territory of the Panama CZ.Rubio not eligible because he was born to Cuban immigrants.Next will be Romney not eligible because his Dad was a non-native born Mexican .

Rubio is not eligible--- born to non US Citizen resident alien Cubans.

================="Mick is nothing if not predictable and endlessly tedious. Good to laugh at, not with.

Obama not eligible.McCain not eligible because his dad was assigned to duty in the US territory of the Panama CZ.Rubio not eligible because he was born to Cuban immigrants.Next will be Romney not eligible because his Dad was a non-native born Mexican ".

And the last line proves that you still fail to understand (or don't want to, or are purposefully obfuscating). It matters not where Romney's father was born, but whether he was a US Citizen when Romney was born.

Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are not elgible because their parents were not US Citizens.

McCain is not eligible because he was born in the PCZ.

2 Parts to the equation as dictated by Minor v. Happersett:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Why should I be, Mick? You've never offered a reasonable course of action to undo what's already been done. I didn't vote for him, so I'm not complicit there. I asked you, going on years now, it seems, that if what you say is true, what you were going to do about it. You've never offered anyone any reason to believe what you're going to "do" will be effective or, for that matter, even legal.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Even if it were, they could try to justify their desire to do so without having to point to a supposed rash of gun crimes on the Mexico border carried out with guns registered in America.

Oh Puh-Leese Cookie…the whole claim, statistics that show 80 to 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico are first sold in the United States is a LIE. Followed with this quote from Hillary Clinton, SecState Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians. Because Gun Control, from Giffords back thru the Virginia Tech Shootings and the like is MORIBUND…the only way to re-start it is to attack from a different front…A Mexican Front, as it were…let Mexico begin to complain and file charges about US guns and violence in Mexico, and then the US might have to “reluctantly” impose new regulations, at a minimum…which they are doing, right now, BTW.

"So what's your explanation, Robert? Either I'm right, or this administration is stupid all the way up. There is no third possibility."

There are always third, fourth, fifth and sixth possibilities, but I'll go with option 2: the government is stupid, at least as far up as necessary for this operation to have been authorized, and probably higher.

I.F. Stone said, "All governments lie." True. Also true is that all governments are stupid.

Some governments lie more than others, and some governments are more stupid than others...but there are none who lack these failings. How could it be otherwise? They're made up of human beings.

Joe, I think your hypothesis is as lacking in any connection to reality as is the idea that Obama is a commie or socialist or whatever other sort of extreme lefty he is seen to be by the delusional right.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Joe, I think your hypothesis is as lacking in any connection to reality as is the idea that Obama is a commie or socialist or whatever other sort of extreme lefty he is seen to be by the delusional right.

Really so the GOVERNMENT allows, nay encourages, FORBIDS gun shop owners from OT selling to obvious “straw purchasers” Does not arrest the purchasers, allows those weapons to flow into Mexico, where they cannot be traced and where the US can make NO arrests, but I’m disconnected from reality?

Sorry Cookie, but again was the IMPOSSIBLE has been eliminated, whatever else is the truth…Government could not follow the weapons, but encourage their sale…government could not arrest the perpetrators, once in Mexico…the “cartel” big-shots were never in danger from the “sting” because they do not handle weapons purchases…so all the “reasonable” explanations have failed….

The remainder, that the POINT of the operation was to get a lot of guns into Mexico, is what remains…and the only possible point could be lots of dead “brown people” at the hands of US weapons. What else other reason could there be?

"Cook's thoughts on the government being stupid are very interesting considering he's all for government controlled and funded healthcare along with confiscatory taxation to fund even more stupidity."

Government being stupid is the nature of the beast, but we cannot abandon government, and government does accomplish much that is necessary and productive.

We can only do our best to hold government responsible for its actions, make it accountable under the law, minimize to the greatest degree possible its propensity to stupidity and corruption and maximize to the degree possible it's potential for serving us.

One could as easily say a computer is stupid, or an ax or a hammer or a knife or a gun is stupid; they are tools which can do as much good or as much harm as is intended by willful users or as permitted by heedless users.

Joe, I'll say again I think you have entered Mick Jagger territory, but even granting for argument's sake you were correct, who do you think would care if lots of "brown people" were killed by US weapons? Heck, what do you think we've been doing intentionally in the middle east for the past decade?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Joe, I'll say again I think you have entered Mick Jagger territory, but even granting for argument's sake you were correct, who do you think would care if lots of "brown people" were killed by US weapons? Heck, what do you think we've been doing intentionally in the middle east for the past decade.

Because the “Bitter Clingers” had stymied Gun Control, but the demands of a FOREIGN government, both diplomatic, and legal, plus efforts at the UN could achieve, what Pelosi and Reid could not….

Scott M said... Why should I be, Mick? You've never offered a reasonable course of action to undo what's already been done. I didn't vote for him, so I'm not complicit there. I asked you, going on years now, it seems, that if what you say is true, what you were going to do about it. You've never offered anyone any reason to believe what you're going to "do" will be effective or, for that matter, even legal.

You should be ashamed, Mick. You're a terrible patriot."

Nonsense. The fact that Obamais ineligible has nothing to do w/ what I will do about it. Your attitude is why it's allowed to happen. Step aside and let those that are awake deal w/ it.

Well whatever empirical evidence Harris Perry had, I don't know. But my personal anecdote is that I held Ombama to a higher standard because I thought he was different and special (I drank the Kool Aid) NOT because he was black. And that's why I have a higher degree of disappointment.

Define my attitude please. The first time I asked you about this, after reading through all of your backup, I asked you what you plan to do about it besides posting about it on a blog.

You're no more awake than the rest of us until you prove otherwise. You have not done so and I give no credit to the thought you might. I fully expect, through no doings of my own, that Obama will be the Democrat's nominee and will be on the ballot in all fifty states.

When that happens, are you going to come here and apologize for letting us down? Will you at least admit failure when that happens?

If, by some miracle, your direct actions prevent Obama from running, I will applaud your efforts. Until that time, you give me no reason to believe you're anything other than a crank on the internet.

As far as I know--and I haven't read extensively on the subject--this was not a rogue, criminal operation, as Watergate was even before the obstruction of justice began, but an authorized government program. A stupid, wrong-headed government program that failed due to incompetence, but then, such is the case with so many government programs. Is anyone alleging this was a criminal operation, undertaken without official approval?

Initially, the party line was that it was a rogue operation involving just a couple of ATF agents. That no longer is the least bit plausible - way too many people too high up knew about it. Then, it started showing up in other states and implicating other agencies.

The problem with the government incompetence explanation is that the avowed explanation for the program was to trace the firearms, but there was no way to trace them after they crossed the border until the Mexican government found them at a crime scene. Then, it turned out that ATF management forbid agents from even tracing them after they left the cooperating FFL (or agent who had used federal funds to buy them).

We are left with the question, what was the purpose of this multi-state, inter-agency, inter-departmental operation?

The most plausible that I have heard was that the purpose was to ship guns bought at guns stores in the U.S. into Mexico so that they could be traced back from crime scenes in Mexico to the gun stores in the U.S., and then be used as ammunition to restrict gun rights here.

Keep in mind that this operation started around the time that the government was touting the 90% of the guns traced from crime scenes in Mexico came from the U.S. (which turns out not to be surprising, since those are the ones most likely to have U.S. serial numbers that can be traced by the U.S. government - but even that figure was grossly exaggerated).

The Obama Administration and Holder Justice Department had shown themselves eager to reimplement the Clinton scary weapons (aka "assault weapon") ban, and had indicated interest in doing so through regulation, if they couldn't get Congress to act (which, they surely could not, even before the 2010 election).

But, I am willing to listen and consider to other justifications and rationales for the gunwalker operations that now appear to have been run in at least three states.

We can only do our best to hold government responsible for its actions, make it accountable under the law, minimize to the greatest degree possible its propensity to stupidity and corruption and maximize to the degree possible it's potential for serving us.

That's brilliant Robert. We could even make a list of things the government was allowed to do, and everything that wasn't on the list, government would not be allowed to do, like take away our right to keep and bear arms. We could write it all down. Why doesn't somebody do that?

Define my attitude please. The first time I asked you about this, after reading through all of your backup, I asked you what you plan to do about it besides posting about it on a blog.

You're no more awake than the rest of us until you prove otherwise. You have not done so and I give no credit to the thought you might. I fully expect, through no doings of my own, that Obama will be the Democrat's nominee and will be on the ballot in all fifty states.

When that happens, are you going to come here and apologize for letting us down? Will you at least admit failure when that happens?

If, by some miracle, your direct actions prevent Obama from running, I will applaud your efforts. Until that time, you give me no reason to believe you're anything other than a crank on the internet."

More nonsense. I don't need to tell you anything, and it certainly has no effect on Obama's eligibility-- that's already determined. I am hoping that Obama is on the Ballot--- duh.

Another idiot "conservative" that has the toll to unseat the Usurper right in front of him yet does NOTHING--- that's you, coward.

"We are left with the question, what was the purpose of this multi-state, inter-agency, inter-departmental operation?

"The most plausible that I have heard was that the purpose was to ship guns bought at guns stores in the U.S. into Mexico so that they could be traced back from crime scenes in Mexico to the gun stores in the U.S., and then be used as ammunition to restrict gun rights here."

And where did you hear this "plausible" explanation?

Its seems I recall reading in the news reports when this was first revealed that the agencies were hoping to trace the weapons to their endpoints in Mexico...presumably, deep within the bowels of the various Mexican criminal gangs. Supposedly they were trying to trace the route of criminal gun running in Mexico and/or to discover the identity of a suspected informant for the criminal gangs who was working for the DEA or FBI or something.

The stupidity of this plan, and the incompetence of those executing it, lay in the failure of the ATF (or whomever) to create a means to track the weapons once they were within the hands of the Mexican criminals.

Government being stupid is the nature of the beast, but we cannot abandon government, and government does accomplish much that is necessary and productive.

Productive? Highly debatable. Admittedly, some that is necessary. I would throw national defense, protection of borders, regulation of aliens, foreign policy, decennial census, patents and copyrights, and a couple of other things in that category. All done fairly inefficiently, but all probably necessary.

We can only do our best to hold government responsible for its actions, make it accountable under the law, minimize to the greatest degree possible its propensity to stupidity and corruption and maximize to the degree possible it's potential for serving us.

First and foremost, the government is not responsible for its actions. It is called sovereign immunity. And, government employees are mostly covered by immunity too.

Secondly, as we have seen with the Holder Justice Department, prosecution by the DoJ is discretionary, and if they don't wish to prosecute someone, they won't. And, if they do, they will find some arcane law or interpretation of such to do so. As noted in the Congressional investigation of Fast and Furious, when the DoJ is involved, and they stone wall, there is not a lot that can be done.

But mostly, this shows a Utopian, unrealistic, wishful thinking view of the way that the world works. Government bureaucracies cannot work well, or even adequately, for most purposes, because there cannot be accountability (because there are not metrics, such as profits) combined with the inherent rent seeking they engender. And, the bigger they are, the more responsibilities they have, the worse they work.

The stupidity of this plan, and the incompetence of those executing it, lay in the failure of the ATF (or whomever) to create a means to track the weapons once they were within the hands of the Mexican criminals.

Is that really plausible? Wouldn't any normal person ask the question of whether and how they were going to trace those guns? Especially, if one of the normal jobs of the ATF agents involved was to trace guns? Who knew that their mandate and powers ended at the U.S. border?

But even more damming to this theory is that one agent was disciplined for disobeying orders not to trace those guns, at least to the border. He followed them to a safe house, then, against direct orders, staked it out for a week, until other people came to pick up the guns. Not only did he not get backup when he called for it, he was disciplined for the whole thing.

Also note that if our federal government were truly trying to trace those guns, then they would have bothered to tell the Mexican government what they were doing. They didn't.

Finally, what good was it to discover that certain guns left certain FFL dealers in AZ and ended up at certain crime scenes in Mexico (and, it turns out, the U.S.)? At best, it could be determined which cartels were importing those guns - but they appear to have known that already, since the guns seem to have been directed towards the Sinaloa cartel.

Indeed it has. I am unable to own the very type of firearm the second amendment indicates when it refers to a well-armed militia, that is, a standard military rifle. The infringements of this right are really too numerous to list. Can you deny with a straight face that it has been the dearest wish of the Left to take away all of my firearms?

Governments are more responsive to the citizenry than multinational corporations.

As for whether imagining the government can work well and for our benefit is utopian...what is the alternative? I know the right takes as a matter of faith that government qua government is evil and is to be feared and hated and "drowned in a bathtub", (even as there are no more reflexive jingoists and zealous patriots than the right), but...without government, what have we?

As I said, we cannot abandon government, so taking as a given we must have it, it is incumbent upon us to compel it to serve our ends, rather than we its ends, insofar as this is possible. Such was at least part of the intentions of those who established our government.

I also disagree that government cannot work well, as there are countries in the world where governments do and have worked well, including, at times, in America. Of course--just as when certain animals overbreed relative to their natural habitat's capacity to sustain them, their natural habitat cannot sustain them and they begin to die off--governments have greater and greater difficulty remaining stable and responsive as populations grow, especially as global resources become scarcer and competition for access to or control of available resources becomes ever more violent.

We're seeing, at least in part, the natural outcome of the unequal access to diminishing resources throughout the countries and populations of the world, and the concomitant struggle for dominance and control.

Another thing to keep in mind with Fast and Furious is that the bulk of the guns being used by the cartels do not come from the U.S. The U.S. guns were semiautomatic AK and SKS variants, previously imported into this country, as well as .50 caliber rifles.

The cartels seem to be primarily utilizing fully automatic military issue AK and M-16 type guns. They are getting them by the container load from around the world, or, even U.S. weapons that we supplied the Mexican military. As well as other armaments, such as (non-assault rifle) machine guns, SAMs, and grenades. Almost all of which could never be purchased legally in those FFL stores in the U.S.

So, the question is, if you think that this was because the government employees, at the highest levels, along with those all the way up and down the hierarchy, were so stupid, then why do you continue to support such a large government? Why do you think then that this sort of idiocy is limited to the DoJ, DHS, and State? Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that this is the norm, and not the exception?

Americans are bristling with firearms of all types. That there may be some super-duper hyper-lethal military-guage weapon that you are prohibited from purchasing does not constitute an infringement of your right to bear arms. I don't know what type of weapon you interpret the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing to you and that is being witheld from you, but I'm sure you are easily able to acquire (and perhaps do own) many highly lethal firearms.

I'm sure there may be some who support the prohibition of possession of any and all firearms by private citizens, but I do not believe such is a widespread belief, and in fact is probably at most a fringe idea.

Governments are more responsive to the citizenry than multinational corporations.

But, probably significantly less responsive than small and medium sized companies that are not multinational.

Besides, the problem with large multinational companies is that they have the resources to buy access and get preferential deals with governments such as ours. It is called "crony capitalism" (or, someone pointed out, more accurately "crony socialism")

If you want to make the argument that we need our government to protect us from evil multinational corporations, then fine. Make it. But such is effectively irrelevant in regards to most of what our federal government does. How does that argument fit into the job that the Departments of HHS, Labor, Homeland Security, Interior, Agriculture, etc. are supposed to be doing?

Bruce, as to the Fast and Furious operation, you raise questions I cannot answer,and there may well be--there probably are--motives behing the operation that are being witheld from us. I believe that stupidity, venality, corruption, ambition, and competition between jurisdictions go a long way toward explaining this major SNAFU.

I still think it is fantastic to declare this was a plot to have a bunch of Mexicans end up shot to death so America could clamp down and take away citizens' guns. As I said, even if it happened, who would care?

"If you want to make the argument that we need our government to protect us from evil multinational corporations, then fine. Make it."

What argument is there to make? It goes without saying!

However, the zealots on the right who would forbid government regulation of business are assisting the multinational corporations--who are swallowing up and leaving fewer and fewer of the smaller companies you mentioned--in taking control of our government.

I don't know what type of weapon you interpret the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing to you and that is being withheld from you, but I'm sure you are easily able to acquire (and perhaps do own) many highly lethal firearms.

I'm sure there may be some who support the prohibition of possession of any and all firearms by private citizens, but I do not believe such is a widespread belief, and in fact is probably at most a fringe idea.

The problem is that the Obama Administration in general, and AG Holder in particular, were vocally pushing very hard for a renewal of the Clinton "scary looking guns" (aka "Assault Weapons") ban. The problem with the ban is that it was based on the look of the guns, and not their functionality. True assault weapons are fully automatic, and considered machine guns under U.S. law, and have thus been highly regulated since the early for almost 80 years now.

What were banned though were guns that looked like assault weapons. The problem is that the state of the art in weaponry did not end in 1936 or so with the introduction of the M-1 Girand. Two full generations of military have learned to shoot on the AR (M-16) platform. So, no surprise that they prefer that platform when they return to civilian life. Besides, these guns can be easily equipped with numerous accessories. As a result, they appear now to be the primary sporting gun being purchased these days. And, yes, many people do hunt with them, though mostly not at the .223 caliber used by the M-16.

Nevertheless, this was the primary weapon banned by Clinton's "Assault Weapon" ban. Why? Apparently, because they looked scary. Why is having a hand grip bad? (that was one of the factors used to determine that a gun was evil enough to be banned) Because it shoots better that way?

The reason that this discussion came up is that the Obama Administration wanted to reintroduce the ban, and then was stymied when Congress wasn't willing to go along. And, then, AG Holder stated that he would do what he could anyway.

However, the zealots on the right who would forbid government regulation of business are assisting the multinational corporations--who are swallowing up and leaving fewer and fewer of the smaller companies you mentioned--in taking control of our government.

Why do you think that those on the right assist multinational corporations more than those on the left do?

I would assert that the Obama Administration, along with allies on the Democratic side of Congress, have shown significantly more willingness to engage in crony capitalism(/socialism) than any Republicans could even contemplate. We saw a company that Pelosi's brother is involved in get a $3/4 billion dollar federal loan guarantee, shortly after the $1/2 billion loan to Solyndra went bad (where Obama fund raiser Kaiser was able to get ahead in line of our government). Multinational GE getting TARP money, as well as numerous "green" contracts. Goldman-Sachs alums sending TARP money to AIG to protect the investments of Goldman-Sachs (and make its owners billions).

Of course, my pet peeve is cross-party: patent reform, passed at the backing of your evil multinationals to the tune of $50-$100 million dollars to gut our patent system so these companies would not have to pay as much when they appropriated the inventions of others. Almost all of the major proponents of the legislation are tokenly American, but realistically multinationals, such as IBM, which has fewer than 1/4 of its worldwide employees located here in the U.S.

Nevertheless, IBM got its guy (Director David Kappos) into the USPTO with the Obama Administration, and so, not surprisingly, that Administration pushed the legislation very hard. Never mind that Kappos had been banned from lobbying for positions that his company (and he himself) had championed and lobbied for before he entered government service - that sort of ban by the Obama Administration only applied when convenient, and only to lower level appointees and employees.

It is AMAZING Cooke’s Willful Blindness. Fast & Furious Recap:1) Many Straw Purchases are made…2) Gun Dealers report these suspicious purchases to the ATF3) The ATF says, “Keep selling to these guys”4) The ATF does NOT follow the guns from the store, except once, thereby losing any ability to intercept the weapons prior to Mexico5) Once IN Mexico the ATF canNOT track the weapons (The ATF knows this)6) And once in Mexico, the ATF is POWERLESS to make arrests, in the bowels of the Sinaloa Cartel or anywhere else (the ATF knows this)So, the ATF knows that once the weapons leave the store the next time they’ll be “seen”, officially is at a crime scene, hopefully in Mexico. There is no “sting;” this isn’t James O’Keefe and ACORN or some Ohio welfare bureaucrat, it may be STUPID, but it was, OBVIOUSLY, a stupid PLAN. The ATF INTENDED for these weapons to end up in Mexico, in the hands of the Sinoloa Cartel. The only two explanations are that the ATF, DHS, and the DoJ hoped to:1) Prop the Sinaloa Cartel up as a counter to the “Zetas” OR2) To use the “Flood” of US weapons to enact gun control regulation/legislation they could not otherwise pass.Now why you refuse to see this is beyond me…I mean you have NO problem seeing every POTUS as a War Criminal/Tool of Wall Street Elites, but have trouble believing the gub’mint would have some ulterior motive in allowing Mexican gangsters to have access to 2,000-plus US weapons.

Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. […] And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

It apparently hasn't occurred to Harris-Perry that Bill Clinton's prospects for reelection were much greater because he had not been able to get ClintonCare through Congress, even when Democrats still controlled both houses.

Nor has it occurred to her that, whether Clinton personally liked welfare reform or not, his willingness to sign the bill made him more popular, not less.

"Why do you think that those on the right assist multinational corporations more than those on the left do?"

If you're talking about those in Washington, holding elected office...I don't, particularly. Oh, there may be some greater reluctance on the part of some Dems to ease corporate regulations, and the Republicans are more upfront about their wish to rescind regulations on business, but realistically, everybody in Washington plays ball with the corporate lobbyists. After all, they're the ones paying for everyone in D.C. to be there.

I'm talking about the parties as a whole and their general ideological perspectives. It is the right wing at large that ceaselessly brays about the "regulatory burdens" on business, and who proselytize tirelessly for removal of those supposed burdens. Those championing the retention or renewal or creation of new regulations to reign in corporate behavior tend to be, I would bet you, more often Democrats than not.